click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
MSNBC 12
MSNBCW 4
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
fitsity still. there's no legislative language. it looks like what could be a pretty big tax increase. the spending cuts i think are highly uncertain. it instructs the various committees of the senate and the house to come up with these spending cuts. we have no assurance that they will do that. we have no idea how they'll do that. then we asked the senate to vote on that. all of which suggests to me there are a number of ways in which this could fall apart. i give these guys all the credit in the world for really struggling and trying to make some progress on a tough issue. there's no assurance that it results in an outcome. if we can't agree on spending cuts now, why should we suppose at the end of this process which after all has been available to us for two years the senate won't even pass a budget, why we think that this will result in real spending cuts is not clear to me. >> the other dynamic here is the mcconnell-reid proposal. that is going to get to the floor at some point. now the idea of being that the gang of six proposal is too late to be scored by cbo to really be put i
leaders are digging in on the big sticking point of taxes ahead of tomorrow's white house summit. chuck todd is nbc's chief white house correspondent and host of "the daily rundown." chuck, we've heard a lot from republicans. today at the bloomberg breakfast it was said that any tax measures had to be revenue positive over the long run that could be ten years out. eventually have to contribute toward deficit reduction. that is not what republican senator john cornyn was saying exactly the opposite what he said on our show yesterday that it has to be revenue neutral. how does the president hope to bridge this devoid? >> reporter: well, you know, they have an interesting tactic here. they believe and frankly behind the scenes so do house republicans believe it will be easier to sell a larger deal that has some things in it that nobody's crazy about on certain sides. whether some trims to entitlements on the democratic side or some of these revenue proposals on the republican side that if it's a large deal, $2.5 trillion to $4 trillion and maybe even $6 trillion in the out years meaning th
to ask the big oil companies to give up one dime not one dime of their $4 billion annual subsidy. they have refused to ask big corporations to give up one dime in their corporate loopholes. what we are negotiating with is a group of people who won't compromise. a group of people who have said we want the middle class to pay more taxes so that big corporations can pay less. we want seniors to lose their medicare so that big oil companies can continue to foost on their subdis. that's what the problem is. >> the case that republicans have taken a hard line on talks, at the same time democrats are taking what sounds like a hard line on entitlements. let me read a statement from leader pelosi that says we continue to oppose benefit cuts in social security and medicare. these pillars should not be used a as piggy bank to subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy. are democrats not just as guilty of failing to compromise as republicans are in this case? >> no, absolutely not. what we have said and i think most americans would agree with this is the middle class and seniors should not be asked
as well. so we need to do something big. >>> plus, decline of an empire? murdoch makes the cover of "time." the uk makes another arrest. and u.s. lawmakers demand investigations into news corp's actions here at home. >>> strikeout. why did the judge just declare a mistrial in the roger clemens' perjury case? >>> good day. i'm andrea mitchell live in washington. it's round five of the debt talks today. coming off the most heated exchange yet in the debt negotiations between president obama and republican leaders. eric cantor says the president all but stormed out of the last meeting. democrats have a different story. their version is that in fact, it was the republicans' fault. major garrett is congressional correspondent. here we are unveiling the cover as we do every week of the "national journal." let's talk about these negotiations. we've got he said/he said, basically. you have two sides accusing each other of storming out. it clearly got a little bit testy. >> it got testy -- >> we're told cantor interrupted the president several times. >> eric cantor was persistent, i'm sure. eric c
ahead with a big deal maybe triggered in or staged later? >> i heard what the president said. i don't think business itself is bothered by the debt ceiling deal or no deal. i think what they may be bothered by is the uncertainty surrounding future tax regime that's going to be required to deal with these deficits. however, factoring into the negotiations what maybe somewhat helpful to the president in a slew of numbers that by and large are totally unhelpful is we're seeing the near term effects of cutting back in government spending. it cost jobs. not just in the government sector, but also in knock on private sector jobs as well. >> steve liesman with all the numbers and what that mean. thank you so much. good to see you, steve. republicans using the bad jobs report to scuttle any new taxes in a budget deal. joining me now virginia democratic senator mark warner a key member of the so-called gang of slight, slightly shrunk to five. still hoping senators working for months on ways to reduce the deficit. your quick reaction to the jobs report first and how it will effect the negotia
toward a vote next week. the president says he still wants a big deal. but for the first time he's opening the door on senator mitch mcconnell's fall back plan which is gaining momentum on capitol hill. chuck todd was in the briefing room for the news conference. host of "the daily rundown" and luke russert. there was a movement from the president at least towards considering the mcconnell backup plan. what are the chances he still might get what he really wants which is a bigger deal? >> to me -- in a way put together to try to get through this. what you felt was the press conference was about was trying to frame the post game debate, if you will. you heard this from the speaker. suddenly they're back to distancing themselves from the debt ceiling. let's get to the debt ceiling part. we're running out of time on that. maybe there's still time to negotiate this grand bargain. that's sort of what i heard out of this. the president will sign anything that gets to his desk that seems to get through both houses of congress at this point. and then after that, maybe there's a conversat
? >> what we need to do is the president proposed that we deal with this very big problem in a big way. and that democrats should put all of our sacred cows on the table. we demonstrated that we're willing to put all our sacred cows on the table. the republicans are simply not willing to do anything but sit on their hands and cross their arms like spoiled children, almost. and that's just not responsible. what democrats want to do when it comes to dealing with entitlements is make sure that we don't end medicare as we know it. that we don't cut benefits but we look at medicare and social security in a way that can preserve the long-term solvency of those programs and not propose what the republicans have to end those programs. >> speak of safety nets, the president did say in his interview last night that he could not guarantee that he would continue paying social security benefits if there were a default. this is what michele bachmann had to say about that. >> we were all shocked and appalled that president obama dangeled out in front of the cameras that senior citizens may not get th
to comment until you see some specifics. i think that the bottom line is in terms of an overall deal, the big holdup here is the fact that republicans have kept revenues off the table completely, even eric cantor yesterday, people said well, it's a great thing he says maybe he'll do a few of these egregious loopholes in the law, corporate jets and yachts and stuff like this, but even there, he had another loophole put in the law and none of the money that would be -- that comes from closing these loopholes would be used to reduce the deficit. so it's one step forward, two steps back. if republicans are willing to entertain serious revenues, there's a real chance for a big deal. if they're not, there's no chance for a big deal and i can tell you this. democrats are not going to go for something that says we have all these cuts that we'll put in the budget now and maybe we'll get revenues down the road, the ways and means committee or the finance committee will decide those down the road. leader reid issued a statement that i think sums up our view, that there has to be balance between cuts and
. there's supposedly meetings between the white house and senate and big game players later this beak. in erms the of a deal we're getting a real date, not necessarily august 2nd, but july 22nd. why? there's a ten-day period needed for the congressional budget office to score any type of compromise as well as you're going to have to sell this compromise to the members. house republicans have been steadfast they don't want any tax increases to consider any type of compromise. speaker boehner needs some time to sell that to his members. >> you're talking about political high ground. you're not talking about the substance. i want to ask you about libya. there is a procedural vote the first step on the kerry-minnesota cane resolution on libya what do you see there? >> it's around 5:30 p.m. today. it really is a procedural vote on the mccain-kerry libya resolution which says for one year the u.s. should allow -- there should be force in libya, u.s. backed force with no ground troops. to one democratic aide said they really don't know how this vote the going to come come out. there is specu
the table, the problem is so big we won't bo able to fix it and the politics are such that it's going to be impossible to get everybody around the table to come one a deal. it really is time for everybody to put these lines in the sand aside and start trying to fix the problem, which is what i think is gang of six did this week breathes a lot of new life into this whole discussion of how do we fix this problem in a way to get a lot of people to sign on and by doing it smartly that's going to help tremendously. >> do you think that the market, the rating agencies and others looking at it from the outside will take it seriously if there is some sort of agreement, a handshake whatever you call it between the president and the speaker of the house that has 217 votes and can get through the house, that there's an agreement for things that will be triggered down the road, is that going to be good enough, tax reform down the road? >> there's a lot of risk. people tend not to believe politicians doing hard things later. at the same time we need to lift the debt ceiling. we need to do that rig
, it made taxpayer funded bailouts illegal. so tax payers don't have to foot the bill if a big bank goes under. second, it said to wall street firms, you can't take the same kind of reckless risks that led to the crisis. and third, it put in place the stronger -- the strongest consumer protections in history. and make sure that these protections work so ordinary people were dealt with fairly so they could make informed decisions about their finances. we didn't just change the law. we changed the way the government did business. for years the job of protecting consumers was divided up in a lot of different agencies. so if you had a problem with the mortgage lender you called one place. if you had a problem with a credit card company, you called somebody else. it meant there were a lot of people who were, but that meant nobody was responsible. and we changed that. we cut the bureaucracy and put one consumer watchdog in charge with just one job. looking out for regular people in the financial system. this is an idea that i got from elizabeth warren who i first met years ago. back then this
it something big? ...or something small? ...something old? ...or something new? ...or maybe, just maybe... it's something you haven't seen yet. the 2nd generation of intel core processors. stunning visuals, intelligent performance. this is visibly smart. this is my band from the 80's, looker. hair and mascara, a lethal combo. i'm jon haber of alto music. my business is all about getting music into people's hands. and the plum card from american express open helps me do that. you name it, i can buy it. and the savings that we get from the early pay discount has given us money to reinvest back into our business and help quadruple our floor space. how can the plum card's trade terms get your business booming? booming is putting more music in more people's hands. you could save a bundle with geico's multi-policy discount. geico, saving people money on more than just car insurance. ♪ geico, saving people money on more than just car insurance. >>> with only one week to go, markets seem to be treating the august 2nd deadline as a nonevent. will it take a total failure here in washington to trigger
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)